One of the aspects that are of our concern is the bailout that tried to stabilize the economy after it crashed in the last decade. The proposal allowed the transfer of $700 billion to the Department of Treasury to purchase declining property that financial firms lost their money on. This paper will also focus on whether or not legislators equally represent their low-income constituents as much as they represent their high-income constituents. As much as it would be believable that representation is equal among everyone, there are many reasons why this is not the case. Because of the inequality of wealth in America, the poor become very poor and the rich become very rich. Likewise, when congressional representatives run for election the price is very high and they need support to be elected. This support is more likely to come from people who have enough money compared to the poor and middle class people who are concerned about their own needs. Both of these aspects will help uncover and answer the burning question regarding our legislators.
Pertaining to the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), better known as the bailout, the infusion of money was supposed to prevent large banks from going under and losing everything. It started in 2007 when many banks had loaned out mortgages to people who defaulted, or could not pay back. Soon losses were obvious and many knew of the situation but tried to cover up the problem. This made many banks insolvent in the period between late 2007 and 2008. The TARP was written to prevent a complete economic collapse caused by side effects of banks bankrupting. However, from the point of view of legislators, this helped the rich bankers who lost a lot on their poor investment choices leaving out the poor people that had been affected. Both conservatives and liberals did not appreciate the bill. For conservatives, the bill went against their belief in free market. For liberals, the bill benefited wealthy people